tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 29 08:26:43 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: -ghach

On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:19:33 -0800 (PST) Pam Felton 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, the English version has an addendum.
> 
> lo'laH
> lo'laHghach
> lo'laHbe'ghach

The English version of TKD does have an Addendum, but it does 
not have any of the above three words in its word list. 
{lo'laH} is in the main word list, not the Addendum. TKD 
Addendum does list these words in the grammar section, though 
the second one is very interesting because of what we've learned 
about the word {lo'laH} and what we've learned about the suffix 
{-ghach}.

First, we now know that there are two totally different words 
which are spelled as {lo'laH}. One is the root {lo'} plus the 
suffix {-laH}. This transitive word cannot be used adjectivally. 
Standing alone as a sentence, it means "He can use it."

The other word has a two syllable root {lo'laH} as given in the 
main word list in TKD. Standing alone as a sentence, it means, 
"It is valuable". Note that the two syllable root is 
intransitive while the single syllable root plus suffix is 
transitive. These are fundamentally different words. They likely 
had some historical root, but Okrand has made it clear that they 
are now distinctly different words. They behave differently, 
since one can take an object and the other can be used 
adjectivally.

We also have learned that {-ghach} cannot generally be used on 
verbs without intervening suffixes. It is "marked" to do so. In 
this case, perhaps it is "Marc"ed to do so. {{:)>

I think the {lo'laHghach} example is not a very good one; likely 
one Okrand would retract now if he had the opportunity. 
Subsequent to it being included in the book, he has refined his 
approach to both the root verb and {-ghach}.

If we take current interpretations of this, {lo'laHghach} would 
have to be using the original single-syllable root, so that 
{lo'laHghach} would mean "the ability to use". Meanwhile, Okrand 
states in the example that he is using {lo'laH} as "be 
valuable", which is the two-syllable root definition.

This same messiness extends into {lo'laHbe'ghach}. These 
examples were simply written before Okrand decided that {lo'laH} 
was a separate root verb. He made that decision because he had 
used {lo'laH} as an adjective, and you can't generally use 
{-laH} on a verb while it is used as an adjective. Faced with 
either declaring {lo'laH} as a separate verb from its original 
root or generally allowing people to use {-laH} on adjectives, 
Okrand chose to declare {lo'laH} a separate word.

This example then uses {-ghach} on a bare verb stem, which he 
says you can't generally do, so we have to cop out and say that 
this is just one of those "natural" glitches. It is an exeption 
to these rules.

> naD
> naDHa'ghach
> naDqa'gha'ch

This is, as Okrand has privately confirmed, the verb root for 
which he created {-ghach}. He needed a way to nominalize a verb 
with a suffix, in order to translate "discommendation". Note 
that in the word list, he gives us {naD} as a verb and as a 
noun, then gives us {naDHa'} as a verb, and since he can't just 
declare {naDHa'} as a noun, he gives us {naDHa'ghach} as a noun. 
Meanwhile, {naDqa'ghach} is not in the word list.

I guess I now have three more entries to add to the New Words 
List: lo'laHghach, lo'laHbe'ghach and naDqa'ghach. [sigh] I 
think I'll pass on listing {naDqa'} since it is somewhat obvious.
 
> Looks like some typos. :)  At least one, in the last word.

Obviously.
 
> K'ryntes

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level